Munish Dabas v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2026CONT.CAS(C)/75/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court contempt petition disposal; CBDT informant reward compliance; W.P.(C) 1333/2025 order dated 18.03.2025 directions; CM APPL.23019/2025 order dated 22.04.2025 modification; sanction order dated 30.12.2025; Rs. 14,00,000/- Final Reward to informant (case of Jas Raj Maloo, PAN AAKPM7107J); CBDT guidelines for grant of Rewards to Informant, 2007; petitioner claims sanctioned amount deficient; liberty to file substantive petition for higher reward; Sachin Datta, J.; 02.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of, no further orders being required in view of the respondents' reported compliance; petitioner granted liberty to file a substantive petition to agitate his entitlement to a higher reward amount. ¶¶19

Munish Dabas Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have complied with the directions in the order dated 18.03.2025 in W.P.(C) 1333/2025 to initiate and conclude the process for determining the reward payable to the petitioner, such compliance being the subject of this contempt petition. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

Accepting the respondents' stand that the directions had been complied with, the reward-determination process having culminated in the sanction order dated 30.12.2025, the court held that no further orders were required to be passed in the present contempt petition.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

On the petitioner's contention that the sanctioned amount is substantially deficient, the court did not adjudicate the quantum but held it open to the petitioner to agitate his entitlement to a higher amount by initiating substantive proceedings, and disposed of the petition accordingly with such liberty.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 75/2026, Munish Dabas v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr., Delhi High Court, decided 02.02.2026, Sachin Datta, J): During hearing, respondents submitted compliance with the directions in the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 1333/2025, read with the order dated 22.04.2025 in CM APPL.23019/2025, having issued the process for determining the informant reward payable to the petitioner, culminating in a sanction order dated 30.12.2025 issued under the CBDT guidelines for grant of Rewards to Informant, 2007, sanctioning withdrawal of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Only) towards Final Reward to the informant in the case of Jas Raj Maloo. Holding no further orders necessary, the court disposed of the contempt petition; on the petitioner's claim that the sanctioned amount was substantially deficient, the court expressly left him free to agitate entitlement to a higher amount through substantive proceedings.

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 75/2026 MUNISH DABAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parth Sahrawat, Advocate. versus

¶4

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Sr. Standing Counsel along with Mr. Akshat Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Sakshi Sheriwal, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Gooraang Ranjan and Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advocates for Revenue.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 02.02.2026

¶7

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the directions contained in the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 1333/2025, read with the order dated 22.04.2025 passed in CM APPL.23019/2025 (seeking modification of the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2025), have been complied with, inasmuch as the respondents have issued the process for determining the reward payable to the petitioner, and on culmination of the said process, have issued a sanction order dated 30.12.2025 which reads as follows:

¶8

“F. No. PDIT (Inv.)-2/HQ/Reward/2025-26/670 Dated: 30 December,

¶9

SANCTION ORDER

¶10

By virtue of power vested in me vide CBDT guidelines for grant of Rewards to Informant, 2007 issued vide folio No. 292/2/1998-IT (Inv. III) dated 29.11.2007, I hereby Sanction the withdrawal of Rs. 14,00,000/-

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:00:02

¶13

(Rupees Fourteen Lakh Only) in connection with the payment of Final Reward to the informant in the case of Jas Raj Maloo, PAN: AAKPM7107J (D.O.S.-18/01/2011). It is certified that all the conditions laid in the guidelines issued by the CBDT for payment of Final Reward are satisfied.

¶14

The expenditure involved shall be met out of grant under head “Other Revenue Expenditure” for Financial Year 2025-56.

¶15

(Krishna Kumar) Pr. Director of Income Tax (Inv)-2 Delhi”

¶16

No further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition in view of the stand taken by the respondents.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sanctioned amount is deficient to a substantial extent and the petitioner is entitled to a much higher amount.

¶18

Needless to say, it would be open to the petitioner to agitate this aspect by initiating substantive proceedings.

¶19

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file a substantive petition seeking to agitate its entitlement for a higher amount.

¶20

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 2, 2026/r

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:00:02

Munish Dabas v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Dabas v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs Sh Sanjay Prasad & Anr.

Ramesh Chand Vs Subhashish Panda

Ayush Sahu Vs Deeksha Kapoor

Gurvinder Singh & Anr. Vs Amrit Mohan Prasad Director General Sashastra Seema Bal & Ors.

Paritosh Kumra Vs Rajender Khare, Director, M/S Kbr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Mandeep

Komal Arora Vs M/S Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Dharambir Singh Vs Municipal Corporation Department Delhi & Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs Sh Sanjay Prasad & Anr.

Ayush Sahu Vs Deeksha Kapoor

Gurvinder Singh & Anr. Vs Amrit Mohan Prasad Director General Sashastra Seema Bal & Ors.

Dc/Gd Puran Ram Vs Sh. Govind Mohan & Ors.

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pradeepa Shivashankar Vs Vishal Pal Singh Commissioner of Customs